RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: The Tardheap of History, Submit your favorite examples< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2010,14:30   

For some reason I was recently pondering the scientific predictions made by ID theory, and wondering what had become of the more interesting of them. My #1 favorite ID-based hypothesis actually became a peer-reviewed* paper** by cell biologist*** Jonathan Wells. This was, of course, the idea that centrioles are not merely the microtubule organizing centers for the mitotic spindle, but that they function like teeny turbines, to generate a force that propels them to opposite sides of a metaphase cell. Not only do the centrioles function "like" tiny turbines, they ARE tiny turbines! (This hypothesis was apparently impossible for the Darwinian reductionist running-dogs to come up with. Hence an ID triumph if true.)

The fact that Wells would have been guffawed off the stage of any Cell Biology meeting for proposing this "hypothesis" did not inhibit him from attaching his name to the paper, which he clearly saw as staking a claim to ID research successes of the future. Presumably, all of the ID-minded researchers out there would be anxious to look at this system in a new ID light, and we might expect some subsequent results of the follow-up.

So how has the hypothesis stood up? It's been cited ONCE:

Cornish-Bowden A, Cardenas (2007). The threat from creationism to the rational teaching of biology. BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH 40(2):113-122.

by a publication that uses it as example of the sneakiness of ID creationists.

Does this mean that this ID-derived hypothesis is dead, or is it just dormant? Is it too early to consign the "centrioles-are-teeny-designed-motors" hypothesis to the tardheap of history?

And what favorite ID-inspired scientific hypotheses do YOU have?

(I understand that this may be a Very Short Thread and am resigned to turning it over to a game of Mornington Crescent if need be.)

*if your peers are wacky euro-creationists
** available at http://www.discovery.org/scripts....&id=490
***assuming a very generous definition of the term.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2010,14:40   

Kings Cross

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2010,15:26   

ID inspired scientific hypothesis? I am genuinely struggling to think of one. None of their hypotheses (and that is a very elastic use of that word) has been genuinely scientific.

Their hopeotheses have been scientifico-jargontastic, but that's about it. Even "irreducible complexity" is effectively just the explicit denial that the ability to take a step leads to the fact that one can eventually walk a mile. Specified complexity is remarkably unspecified for something so allegedly specific. Show me the science! I'm not even sure that "flagellum looky likey motor" or "centriole looky likey turbine" are scientific.

Hence I can give no proper answer to the question posed. Since the religious antecedents of IDC have been amply demonstrated time and again I can only conclude with:

Temple!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2010,15:53   

What you said, Louis.

ID is not, and never has been, about making hypotheses and subjecting them to test.  It's about creating some sciency-sounding buzzwords and catchphrases, with three aims:

(1) Convincing courts and legislators (who are not usually scientists) to allow the teaching of creationism in classrooms.  Ran headlong into a brick wall in Dover, still trying to regroup.

(2) Providing some technical-sounding babble to persuade fundies (who are almost never scientists, and can be relied on not to ask questions) that science proves Jesus.  Aim 2 helps put pressure on courts and legislators, reinforcing aim 1.  It also is essential for:

(3) Enabling Dr Dr D to maintain his iconic and lucrative status as the Isaac Newton Of Farty Noises.  I don't imagine the East Texas Bible And Ironing School is all that generous in its travel-expenses policy, and it would be hard to give up the first-class seats, limos and decent hotels.  


Oh, and: Ealing Broadway

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2010,15:59   

Funderburg & Zimmerman

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2010,16:12   

Casey Luskin: †
Quote
For example, consider again the bicycle. Bicycles have two wheels. Unicycles, having only one wheel, are missing an obvious component found on bicycles. Does this imply that you can remove one wheel from a bicycle and it will still function? Of course not. Try removing a wheel from a bike and you'll quickly see that it requires two wheels to function. The fact that a unicycle lacks certain components of a bicycle does not mean that the bicycle is therefore not irreducibly complex.


Carl Zimmer: †
Quote
Of course not. No. Itís not as if five seconds of googling could turn up a bicycle that still functioned without both wheelsÖ




--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout Ľ

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2010,16:29   

Yeah, Louis summed it up quite nicely.

But as far as predictions go, we can still laugh out loud at "darwinism will be exctinct in fiver years time"*


Also, a couple of months ago I actually passed Mornington Crescent on my way to the London Zoo with my girlfriend. We wanted to stop there and take a picture so I could own everyone's ass, but time wasn't on our side...








*Ad-lib. Don't remember the exact phrasing and too lazy to pull-out my google-fu.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2010,18:18   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 18 2010,22:29)
[SNIP]

Also, a couple of months ago I actually passed Mornington Crescent on my way to the London Zoo with my girlfriend. We wanted to stop there and take a picture so I could own everyone's ass, but time wasn't on our side...

[SNIP]

I hate to do this to you, but some handsome genius* has already done this.

Apologies.

Louis

*Actual handsomeness and genius subject to availability. Contents may have settled during shipping.

ETA: IDC has been tested by our real life scienticians in our fully equipped laboratorium. And don't you forget it.

--------------
Bye.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2010,18:31   

Quote (Louis @ June 18 2010,18:18)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 18 2010,22:29)
[SNIP]

Also, a couple of months ago I actually passed Mornington Crescent on my way to the London Zoo with my girlfriend. We wanted to stop there and take a picture so I could own everyone's ass, but time wasn't on our side...

[SNIP]

I hate to do this to you, but some handsome genius* has already done this.

Seeing has how your pictures were from March 2010, I am assuming that the handsome genius you are referring to is Bob O'H, since he was there in September 2008.



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2010,05:40   

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 19 2010,00:31)
Quote (Louis @ June 18 2010,18:18)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 18 2010,22:29)
[SNIP]

Also, a couple of months ago I actually passed Mornington Crescent on my way to the London Zoo with my girlfriend. We wanted to stop there and take a picture so I could own everyone's ass, but time wasn't on our side...

[SNIP]

I hate to do this to you, but some handsome genius* has already done this.

Seeing has how your pictures were from March 2010, I am assuming that the handsome genius you are referring to is Bob O'H, since he was there in September 2008.


I was referring to Bob's triumph, however I couldn't  find the photo so had to use a lesser one.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2010,17:10   

Quote (olegt @ June 18 2010,17:12)
Casey Luskin: † †  
Quote
For example, consider again the bicycle. Bicycles have two wheels. Unicycles, having only one wheel, are missing an obvious component found on bicycles. Does this imply that you can remove one wheel from a bicycle and it will still function? Of course not. Try removing a wheel from a bike and you'll quickly see that it requires two wheels to function. The fact that a unicycle lacks certain components of a bicycle does not mean that the bicycle is therefore not irreducibly complex.


Carl Zimmer: † †  
Quote
Of course not. No. Itís not as if five seconds of googling could turn up a bicycle that still functioned without both wheelsÖ



Deluded evilutionists.



--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2010,21:07   

So what does it mean to be on the Tardheap of History? Certainly, it doesn't mean it is thrown away, like on the Ash Heap of History, because Tard always gets recycled with simple mutational changes rearrangements of the letters.

Quote
CSI, Complex Specified Information
DFSCI, Digital Functionally Specified Complex Information
EF, Explanatory Filter
FAI, Functional Algorithmic Information
Fits, Functional Bits
FSC, Functional Sequence Complexity
FSCI, Functionally Specified Complex Information
GSP, Genetic Selection Principle
ID, Intelligent Design
IR, Irreducible Complexity
PI, Prescriptive Information
TARD, The Argument Regarding Design
UPB, Universal Probability Bound
UPM, Universal Plausibility Metric
FIIRDS, Functional Incredibly Improbable Random Digital Strings
FSCO/I, Functionally Specific, Complex †Organisation and associated Information
RIC Ė Relative Irreducible Complexity

FIASCO, Functional Information in Algorithmically Specified Complex Organization

At this time, we would like to take a close look at the influence of David Abel's work with the "Cybernetic Cut". A Google web search may give us some idea as to whether the concept belongs on the Tardheap or the Ash Heap of History. Here are the current top listings:

† †
Quote
1. Article by David Abel
2. William S. Burroughs's Cybernetic Cut-ups
3. Telic Thoughts
4. David Abel's book
5. Collaborating on the Computer with William S. Burroughs
6. William S. Burroughs's Cybernetic Cut-ups
7. Origin of Life Foundation using Abel's Cybernetic Cut to award a million straw-dollar prize.
8. Uncommon Descent

A search for "Cybernetic Cut" on Google scholar returns these 5 hits:

†  
Quote
1. Paper by David Abel
2. Paper by David Abel
3. Paper by David Abel
4. Paper by David Abel
5. Paper by David Abel

We'll let the reader decide on which Heap applies.

-
Running tally of acronyms. Last update 2010-10-16, 2012-01-02, 2012-01-22


--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2010,22:04   

I think we should give Wells his due: he DID put forward an actual model (a little helical screw inside the centriole makes it function like a turbine) and suggest ways to test it (by direct visualization in high resolution images of the centrosome at metaphase, the observation of wobbly vortexer-like action, etc.).

It's a stupid model, but I don't recall anything else from the IDers approaching that level of detail. The fact that no-one--not even Wells--followed up on this is pretty good evidence of his motivations in writing the paper. If he ever speaks in public I'd like to ask him how that model has worked out in the five years since. Has there been any further evidence for or against it?

Ontogenetic Depth belongs on the Tardheap, but I think Wells' centriole model is king of the hill.

But anyway, Southwark.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2010,22:23   

It's not quite what I had in mind with the OP, but does anyone else remember Christopher Langan's* "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe"? It was sort of a verbal analog to TimeCube, and WMD seemed to think it was The Shit for awhile.

*Oops. By mentioning his name I may have just brought down upon our heads the wrath of his internet troll-posse (Hi Genie!). Sorry about that.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
rossum



Posts: 227
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,11:33   

Quote (Tom Ames @ June 19 2010,22:23)
It's not quite what I had in mind with the OP, but does anyone else remember Christopher Langan's* "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe"? It was sort of a verbal analog to TimeCube, and WMD seemed to think it was The Shit for awhile.

*Oops. By mentioning his name I may have just brought down upon our heads the wrath of his internet troll-posse (Hi Genie!). Sorry about that.

ISCID still remembers him: http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan.php

But does ISCID have anything other than memories anyway?

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,15:57   

Handsome devil? How can anyone write that with a straight face?

BTW, Westbourne Park
(somewhere else I have been, but have no photos to prove it)

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,21:26   

Quote (Tom Ames @ June 19 2010,20:04)
I think we should give Wells his due: he DID put forward an actual model (a little helical screw inside the centriole makes it function like a turbine) and suggest ways to test it (by direct visualization in high resolution images of the centrosome at metaphase, the observation of wobbly vortexer-like action, etc.).

It's a stupid model, but I don't recall anything else from the IDers approaching that level of detail. The fact that no-one--not even Wells--followed up on this is pretty good evidence of his motivations in writing the paper. If he ever speaks in public I'd like to ask him how that model has worked out in the five years since. Has there been any further evidence for or against it?

Ontogenetic Depth belongs on the Tardheap, but I think Wells' centriole model is king of the hill.

But anyway, Southwark.

Then there was that bozo on PT once with his "Law of Increasing Complexity".  Wonder how that could be reconciled with "Genetic Entropy".  Stuff gets more complicated, and thus less perfect?  I had a writer friend posit the idea once that rewrites are never as good as the original, even if it was just a rough draft. HA!

Neasden.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,01:10   

Quote
I had a writer friend posit the idea once that rewrites are never as good as the original, even if it was just a rough draft. HA!

Maybe not quite the same thing, but no written text of mine ever approaches the clarity and stringency of the superbly worded chain of thought that triggered my attempt at writing it down; only to decide that the c**p isn't even publishable. So there.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,08:34   

Quote (Quack @ June 20 2010,23:10)
Quote
I had a writer friend posit the idea once that rewrites are never as good as the original, even if it was just a rough draft. HA!

Maybe not quite the same thing, but no written text of mine ever approaches the clarity and stringency of the superbly worded chain of thought that triggered my attempt at writing it down; only to decide that the c**p isn't even publishable. So there.

I think what he was feeling but not saying was that editing and rewriting isn't nearly the rush of getting the idea in the first place.  Clarity? Many's the time I look and old notes and go, "Uh... what?"

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,10:31   

Quote (fnxtr @ June 21 2010,14:34)
Quote (Quack @ June 20 2010,23:10)
Quote
I had a writer friend posit the idea once that rewrites are never as good as the original, even if it was just a rough draft. HA!

Maybe not quite the same thing, but no written text of mine ever approaches the clarity and stringency of the superbly worded chain of thought that triggered my attempt at writing it down; only to decide that the c**p isn't even publishable. So there.

I think what he was feeling but not saying was that editing and rewriting isn't nearly the rush of getting the idea in the first place. †Clarity? Many's the time I look and old notes and go, "Uh... what?"

I was having a period of spectacular ideas at night a few years ago and decided to write them down. I invested in a Moleskine notebook and a BIC 4-colour biro to set next to my bed for night time flashes of inspiration. After a few months I came to one over-riding conclusion:

Never, ever, EVER trust any idea I come up with at three in the morning. They are typically unremitting shite.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,11:17   

How about Front Loading? †I don't know if has gotten circulated widely enough to qualify, but it is one of my faves...

IDC: †Life is designed, evolution is designed, it's all Design.

Reality: †You don't have any evidence of design or a designer.

IDC: †Even better! †The Designing must have taken place way back in our unknowable history, and has been unfolding naturally and undetectably ever since. †How AWESOME is that?

Reality: †What? †How can...why would...wait, what?

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,14:40   

Quote (fnxtr @ June 21 2010,14:34)
 
Quote (Quack @ June 20 2010,23:10)
Quote
I had a writer friend posit the idea once that rewrites are never as good as the original, even if it was just a rough draft. HA!

Maybe not quite the same thing, but no written text of mine ever approaches the clarity and stringency of the superbly worded chain of thought that triggered my attempt at writing it down; only to decide that the c**p isn't even publishable. So there.

I think what he was feeling but not saying was that editing and rewriting isn't nearly the rush of getting the idea in the first place. †Clarity? Many's the time I look and old notes and go, "Uh... what?"

Hmm, I guess it is a question of style - some of the writing I've been most pleased with has come out almost fully formed, for example I wrote my first 'proper' research paper in about 24 hours, showed it to my supervisor who told me it was about 98 percent complete. (it won best paper prize at a conference)

But then I wasn't writing about a new idea I had just had.

Sometimes when I've gone back to edit stuff it all goes wrong - then comes right if I just start at the beginning and type the whole thing again.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,20:05   

Quote (Quack @ June 21 2010,01:10)
Quote
I had a writer friend posit the idea once that rewrites are never as good as the original, even if it was just a rough draft. HA!

Maybe not quite the same thing, but no written text of mine ever approaches the clarity and stringency of the superbly worded chain of thought that triggered my attempt at writing it down; only to decide that the c**p isn't even publishable. So there.

And as Denyse O'leary would adapt your words and thoughts...

Quote
 No written text of mine ever approaches any type of clarity and the stringency of a superbly worded chain of thought, so I decide that the c**p is publishable anyway. So there.


--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1431
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,21:54   

Quote (J-Dog @ June 21 2010,20:05)
Quote (Quack @ June 21 2010,01:10)
†  
Quote
I had a writer friend posit the idea once that rewrites are never as good as the original, even if it was just a rough draft. HA!

Maybe not quite the same thing, but no written text of mine ever approaches the clarity and stringency of the superbly worded chain of thought that triggered my attempt at writing it down; only to decide that the c**p isn't even publishable. So there.

And as Denyse O'leary would adapt your words and thoughts...

†  
Quote
†No written text of mine ever approaches any type of clarity and the stringency of a superbly worded chain of thought, so I decide that the c**p is publishable anyway. So there. Buy my book!

ftfy

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,22:17   

Does anyone else think that Denyse O'Leary is secretly Anne Elk (or vice versa)? Or is that just me?

  
  24 replies since June 18 2010,14:30 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]